You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam plus metronidazole versus piperacillin/tazobactam as initial empiric therapy for the treatment of complicated intra-abdominal infections based on pathogen distributions drawn from national surveillance data in the United States
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13756-017-0264-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vimalanand S. Prabhu, Joseph S. Solomkin, Goran Medic, Jason Foo, Rebekah H. Borse, Teresa Kauf, Benjamin Miller, Shuvayu S. Sen, Anirban Basu |
| Abstract |
The prevalence of antimicrobial resistance among gram-negative pathogens in complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs) has increased. In the absence of timely information on the infecting pathogens and their susceptibilities, local or regional epidemiology may guide initial empirical therapy and reduce treatment failure, length of stay and mortality. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam + metronidazole compared with piperacillin/tazobactam in the treatment of hospitalized US patients with cIAI at risk of infection with resistant pathogens. We used a decision-analytic Monte Carlo simulation model to compare the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of persons infected with nosocomial gram-negative cIAI treated empirically with either ceftolozane/tazobactam + metronidazole or piperacillin/tazobactam. Pathogen isolates were randomly drawn from the Program to Assess Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Susceptibility (PACTS) database, a surveillance database of non-duplicate bacterial isolates collected from patients with cIAIs in medical centers in the USA from 2011 to 2013. Susceptibility to initial therapy was based on the measured susceptibilities reported in the PACTS database determined using standard broth micro-dilution methods as described by the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Our model results, with baseline resistance levels from the PACTS database, indicated that ceftolozane/tazobactam + metronidazole dominated piperacillin/tazobactam, with lower costs ($44,226/patient vs. $44,811/patient respectively) and higher QALYs (12.85/patient vs. 12.70/patient, respectively). Ceftolozane/tazobactam + metronidazole remained the dominant choice in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Based on surveillance data, ceftolozane/tazobactam is more likely to be an appropriate empiric therapy for cIAI in the US. Results from a decision-analytic simulation model indicate that use of ceftolozane/tazobactam + metronidazole would result in cost savings and improves QALYs, compared with piperacillin/tazobactam. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 40% |
| Brazil | 1 | 10% |
| Spain | 1 | 10% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 70% |
| Scientists | 2 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 20% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 20% |
| Unknown | 9 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 32% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 12% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 7% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 5% |
| Decision Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 10 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,416,542
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
#607
of 1,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,409
of 331,890 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
#18
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,347 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,890 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.